pianc incom wg 141: “design guidelines for dimensions” · layman : read chapter 2 (basics), 3...

Cambodia Seminar, 23/24th October 2019 – WG141 Design Guidelines for Inland Waterway Dimensions – Soenghen/Deplaix 1

Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways

PIANC INCOM WG 141:

“Design Guidelines for

Inland Waterway

Dimensions” –

Bernhard Söhngen, chair,

WGI41

Edited by JM Deplaix for

Cambodia Seminar on October

23rd in Phnom Penh

Waterway dimensions considered

• Fairway and cross section of canals

• Fairway width in rivers

• Net width and headroom of bridge openings

• Length and width of lock approaches

• Necessary navigational area of junctions

• Length and breadth of turning basins

• Length, breadth and layback of berthing

places



PIANC INCOM WG 141:


Inland Waterway

Dimensions” –


WGI41

Version for Cambodia

Seminar on October 23rd

in Phnom Penh









places

FOR WHOM ?Target group: •Decision-makers in administrations (approach, stakeholders, effort) •Planners of waterways (concrete design rules, approach) •Developers and appliers of simulators (scientists, engineers)



PIANC INCOM WG 141:


Inland Waterway

Dimensions” –


WGI41



in Phnom Penh









places


FOR WHAT ?Application Objectives• Matching different guidelines •Making design understandable•Structured unified approach•Understanding of necessary expenses



PIANC INCOM WG 141:


Inland Waterway

Dimensions” –


WGI41



in Phnom Penh









places



What? Selected waterway dimensions: •Fairway and cross section in canals •Fairway width in rivers•Bridge openings (width, height) •Length and width of lock approaches •Navigation space at junctions•Minimum width and length of turning basins •Length, width and layback of berthing places



PIANC INCOM WG 141:


Inland Waterway

Dimensions” –


WGI41



in Phnom Penh









places



What? Selected waterway dimensions: •Fairway and cross section in canals •Fairway width in rivers•Bridge openings (width, height) •Length and width of lock approaches •Navigation space at junctions•Minimum width and length of turning basins •Length, width and layback of berthing places

What is not included ? Application limits:

•No justification “whether” a waterway shall be improved or not, •but if “yes”, „how“ and •only up to a certain level of detail only! •The report doesn’t replace detailed engineering!


Structure of the report

To avoid the unsafe side:

“Therefore WG 141 proposes a more generalized

approach, basing on the

• review of existing guidelines and the

• corresponding Concept Design Method, the

• consideration of practice examples in the so called

“Practice Approach” and in special cases the

• use of field experiments or simulation

techniques” 3 Steps-Approach



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

1.2 Objectives according to the Terms of Reference

1.3 Guidance notes to the Reader of the report

Need of revised guidelines because of

• larger, but better equipped inland vessels,

• better on-board information systems,

• pressure concerning economics and

ecology …

Strong demand for narrower standards!






• pressure concerning economics and ecology …



“Therefore WG 141 proposes a more generalized approach,

basing on the





• use of field experiments or simulation techniques”

• 3 Steps-Approach

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

1.2 Objectives according to the Terms of Reference

1.3 Guidance notes to the Reader of the report









“Therefore WG 141 proposes a more generalized approach, basing on the







The Report can be read selectively

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

1.2 Objectives according to the Terms

of Reference

1.3 Guidance notes to the Reader

of the report


0








“Therefore WG 141 proposes a more generalized approach, basing on the







The Report can be read selectively

Layman : Read Chapter 2 (basics), 3 (S&E), 4 (3 design steps), and use 5 and the appendixes for understanding

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

1.2 Objectives according to the Terms

of Reference

1.3 Guidance notes to the Reader

of the report


1


Main Tasks:

• Consider actual dimensions of vessels

according to international standards.

• Take into account the demands of climate change

and ecology.

• Consider influences of wind, visibility, currents …

• Refer to all relevant PIANC publications, especially to

MarCom WG 49

Specification and restriction:

We will focus on

• modern vessels (future view)

• dimensions of fairways

• lock approaches

• turning basins

• berthing places

• bridge openings

Defining lower limits of navigational space

based on nautical aspects only supports

economical, environmental and climate

change aspects (indirect consideration)

• Concept Design: basic + extra widths

• Special S&E consideration, either for

Concept and Detailed Design …

“S&E” stands for “safety

and ease of navigation”


2

Structure of the

report

The report offers several of these

flow charts.

The main message behind this

chart is that waterway design

demands for a looped

approach, meaning e.g. to give

feedback to the planners after

having first results and to adapt

e.g. the design case if appropriate

Involving e.g. simulations

from the 1st beginning!

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

1.2 Objectives according to

the Terms of Reference

1.3 Guidance notes to the

Reader of the report



General restriction:

WG 141 focused on how

waterway dimensions has to be

designed, not on whether a

measure shall be taken or not!

This is outside of the report, but

the chart shows how this decision

is linked to the report!



2 TECHNICAL INFORMATION

2.1 Classification of commercial vessels for waterway design

2.2 Waterway infrastructure aspects (canals, impounded rivers, free-

flowing rivers)

2.3 Driving dynamics relevant for the design (effects of confined waters,

ship-induced waves and currents, human factor, bends, cross currents,

groynes, wind)

2.4 Definition and clarification of design case and data needed

Classification

according to

different countries /

guidelines!

Example: Russian Classification

Extended classification,

e.g. concerning

powering






flowing rivers)



groynes, wind)


Figure 1: Multiple locking of a pushed convoy in the USA

Explaining relevant

infrastructure details by

practice examples, depending

on waterway type, e.g. lock

width, depth over sill, lock

length for impounded rivers

River lock without lock approach!






flowing rivers)



groynes, wind)


Explaining physics

behind driving

dynamics!

Example:

Engine power

needed of a Class

Va vessel in

different cross

sections!






flowing rivers)



groynes, wind)


Explaining physics

behind driving

dynamics!

Another Example:

Speed with

different shapes of

cross sections!






flowing rivers)



groynes, wind)


Explaining physics

behind driving

dynamics!

Another Example:

Speed with

different shapes

and same cross

sections!






flowing rivers)



groynes, wind)


Figure 1: Flow vectors at a groyne head without (upper picture) and with drawdown influence (lower picture)

Other factors :

Class Va vessel

passes a groyne head

Reference to VBW

publication (free

download under:

www.vbw-ev.de &

www.baw.de)

http://www.vbw-ev.de/

http://www.baw.de/





flowing rivers)



groynes, wind)

2.4 Definition and

clarification of

design case

and data

needed

Remember: This is the first and most important

step in waterway design, e.g. to restrict effort!

The report

provides check

lists to support the

reader in finding

relevant design

cases

Are encounters of vessels with empty containers at strong wind really design-relevant?



3 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY AND EASE QUALITY AND

ITS USAGE FOR DESIGN

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Simplified safety and ease approach supporting concept design

3.2.1 Parameters influencing waterway design

3.2.2 Example

3.3 Detailed safety and ease approach supporting detailed design

• There are often huge differences in national guidelines, e.g.

concerning lock approach lengths

• How to match these numbers in the report?

Table 1: Lock approach (LA) as a factor of ship dimension (*from top of jetty to lock entry), (s) single, (d) double

Lock Approach BLA/B LLA/L Quality of driving

China 3.5 - 4.5 (s) 3.5 - 4.0

3.0 - 3.5*

A - B

7.0 (d) A - B

Dutch 2.2 (s) 1.0 - 1.2 B - C

French 2.9 (s) 0.5* C

Germany 3.0 - 4.0 (s)

2.8 B

4.5 - 6.0 (d)





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example

3.3 Detailed safety and ease approach supporting detailed design• But there are objective reasons for different S&E qualities

• How to find the necessary S&E quality?

• How to deal with a huge number of design criteria?

Collection of

design criteria

determining the

• existing

(analysis

case) or

• necessary

(design case)

S&E quality

If the S&E-approach

works properly, it

should fit with all

existing guidelines!

This was the main

reason behind the

approach!





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example


• There are partly huge differences in national guidelines, e.g.

concerning lock approach lengths

• How to match these numbers in the report?

• But there are objective reasons for different S&E qualities

• How to find the necessary S&E quality?

• How to deal with a huge number of design criteria?

If the S&E-

approach

works properly,

it should fit

with all existing

guidelines!

This was the

main reason

behind the

approach!





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example


• Simplified approach (Concept Design):

• Find an appropriate S&E quality to be used for

• Designing the waterway dimension with the Concept Design

• The numbers given are related to S&E qualities

• Detailed approach (Detailed Design):

• Use a rational approach to quantify the S&E quality in using

simulation techniques

• Find an appropriate ease reference case

• and compare it quantitatively with the design case

• Principle of comparative variant analyses!





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example


Class Designation

A Nearly unrestricted drive

B Moderate to strongly restricted

drive

C Strongly restricted drive

The methodology:

Define 3 groups of

S&E representing the

easiness to navigate

on a waterway !

Quantifying S&E both

for Concept and

Detailed Design!

HOW TO DO IT ?





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example

3.3 Detailed safety and ease approach supporting detailed designThe methodology:

Define 3 groups of

S&E representing the

easiness to navigate

on a waterway !

Quantifying S&E both

for Concept and

Detailed Design!

HOW TO DO IT ?

It is this quantification method which isthe most innovative aspect of the report, all other chapters are usingalready known formulas by specialists





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example


Example passage of Jagstfeld

Bridge Neckar River with 135 m

long Class Vb vessels

For this quantification, wegrade 3 groups of criteria:one on waterway conditions,

with 7 criteria to grade second on speed, with 2 criteria

third on traffic, also with 2 criteriaThe Respective weights are to be tested so as to reflect the

general feeling about thiswaterway, and may change

from a waterway to the other

Analysis Case to check the approach and to

find out appropriate ease reference cases

Design Case for defining an appropriate

S&E quality for design





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example


We use 2 tables:one (Analysis case) to evaluate the present state, like in a classification, and calibratethe weighing,





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example


What is in the green column are the good points, the easy sailing, and in the red columare the bad points. These 11 criteria are rated as good or bad, and noted, then weighed.





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example





The other table (Design case) ismeant to takestock of whathas to be doneto reach the S&E desired level, soas to preparethe terms of reference of the design.





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example





Here, the redcolumn means a need to improveand is carryinghigh notes, while the green column has badnotes, sincethere is no needto improve whatis already good



What was a hindrance to navigation, and giving a poor S&E figure in the present state, red column on the right…



…is the reason to aim at a high S&E figure in the

REQUESTED design, red column on the left of the

second table, for design



Within each table, for each of these 11 criteria, weevaluate the proper figure (score), multiply by the coefficient (single factor) then by the group factor, to obtain a total on 20, itself divided by 20 to obtain a figure between +1 and -1, enabling to place the waterway in A, B or C



This is done to evaluate the present, first table, and then to define the level of design, second table.Next, depending on whether it is a canal, a river or a canalised river, we use tables giving the dimensions to follow, in straight course, according to the category A, B or C.The terms of reference are then fixed, we canpass to studies of specific places



Here is

such a

table, for

canals, the

more

complete.

Thus, the

terms of

Reference

can be

drafted in

full details.




3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example

3.3 Detailed safety

and ease approach

supporting detailed

design

• Adjust the quantitative S&E approach,

• taking results from

simulations,

• average the time-series of data over relevant

simulation periods

Specifications

in APPENDIX III

For that, we have to take

into consideration fine

tuning or difficult points,

which shall need detailed studies.

Use e.g. so-called “reserves”, e.g.

concerning rudder angle:

Rudder reserve =

• maximum rudder angle (by

construction),

• minus actual rudder angle,

• divided by the maximum rudder

angle!

Rationally

quantifying S&E!

Example

“rudder score”

(the higher the

worse)





3.1 Introduction



3.2.2 Example

3.3 Detailed safety

and ease approach

supporting detailed

design

• Adjust the quantitative S&E approach,

• taking results from

simulations,

• average the time-series of data over relevant

simulation periods

• and match it together (weighted average) to a

comprehensive S&E score

Specifications

in APPENDIX F

Rationally

quantifying

S&E!

Reserve isanotherword for the safetydistance/ capacity


4 RECOMMENDED STEPS IN WATERWAY DESIGN

4.1 Introduction to the three design methods

Practice Approach• Use practice data, which

are comparable to the design case

• Use data from previous projects

• Check application limits

Use national guidelines if available and applicableConcept Design

• Choose appropriate S&E quality• Perform the design according to

the S&E score (basic dimension) + increments if appropriate

• Check applicability limits

Use international guidelines if applicable and accepted instead

More specific flow chart on how

to apply the 3-Steps-Approach

Compare results from national and international guidelines as well as practice

After specifying the design case and corresponding local boundary conditions (steps 1,2)

End of the approach, if there are no doubts!




Practice Approach• Use practice data, which

are comparable to the design case

• Use data from previous projects

• Check application limits

Use national guidelines if available and applicableConcept Design

• Choose appropriate S&E quality• Perform the design according to

the S&E score (basic dimension) + increments if appropriate

• Check applicability limits

Use international guidelines if applicable and accepted instead

More specific flow chart on how

to apply the 3-Steps-Approach

Compare results from national and international guidelines as well as practice

After specifying the design case and corresponding local boundary conditions (steps 1,2)

Use Concept Design as preliminary design bathymetry and flow field for the detailed design

Detailed Design• Choice of method & modelling, • Performance of the detailed

design study• Interpretation of results• Check of decisive design cases• Feedback to planners

If application limits are exceeded (e.g. if flow velocity is too high) or if there are other good arguments for a Case by Case Study

End of 3-Steps-Approach, if there are no doubts!

Compare all previous results and those from or similar projects if available

Consideration of impacts & feedback to the specification of the design case(s) … (step 7)




4.2 Definition and aim of the Concept Design method

4.3 Practice Approach – using existing examples

4.4 Detailed or case-by-case design

• Matching of data from

different sources (mainly

from existing guidelines,

which are collected in

APPENDIX I)











APPENDIX I)

• Assignation to S&E

qualities (assessment by

the members)

Fairways in rivers - conclusions from practice data

Waterway

Fairway width for alternate single-lane

(basic width)

Fairway width for two-way (basic width)

Ease quality Remarks


C B A C B A

min WF (straight sections)

1)

3.0 B2)

2.8B 3.2B 3.4B

For safety reasons

4B 5B 6B 3B can damage the embankments

The numbers for single-lane were chosen proportional to those for canals.

Table 1: Conclusions drawn from the evaluation of practice examples for free-flowing rivers.

Waterway


(basic width)




C B A C B A

min WF (straight sections) 1)

3.0 B2) For security reasons

4B 5B 6B

3 B can damage the embankments

min D (over entire fairway width)

1.2 d 1.3 d

Because of squat & efficiency of bow-thrusters

1.2 d 1.3 d 1.4 d


min R (F needed

for R )3) 2 L 3 L 4 L

Depending on natural condition

2 L 3 L 4 L Depending on natural condition

The numbers are valid for average equipped and instrumented freight vessels and further restrictions concerning waterway properties as flow velocity (not more than around 1.5 m/s) or moderate wind speeds of

an inland stretch (not more than around 5-6 BF).

Finally balanced in April 2017











APPENDIX I)

• Assignation to S&E

qualities (assessment by

the members)

• Application limits and in

which cases a detailed

study will be recommended

Fairways in rivers - conclusions from practice data

Waterway


(basic width)




C B A C B A

min WF (straight sections)

1)

3.0 B2)

2.8B 3.2B 3.4B

For safety reasons

4B 5B 6B 3B can damage the embankments

The numbers for single-lane were chosen proportional to those for canals.

Table 1: Conclusions drawn from the evaluation of practice examples for free-flowing rivers.

Waterway


(basic width)




C B A C B A

min WF (straight sections) 1)

3.0 B2) For security reasons

4B 5B 6B

3 B can damage the embankments

min D (over entire fairway width)

1.2 d 1.3 d


1.2 d 1.3 d 1.4 d


min R (F needed

for R )3) 2 L 3 L 4 L

Depending on natural condition

2 L 3 L 4 L Depending on natural condition

The numbers are valid for average equipped and instrumented freight vessels and further restrictions concerning waterway properties as flow velocity (not more than around 1.5 m/s) or moderate wind speeds of

an inland stretch (not more than around 5-6 BF).

Finally balanced in April 2017







• Data are rare and difficult to

obtain

• Relevant data are mentioned

in Chapter 5 for each design

aspect separately

• Collection of data in

APPENDIX 2

• Scientifically elaboration of

fairway data from rivers only

By the way:

The steepness of the lines are

related to the usual formula for

the extra width in curves,

taking cc=1:

bc = cC0.5L2 / R for each

vessel

(as in the German Guidelines)






4.4 Detailed or

case-by-case

design

Table 1: Criteria speaking for a detailed study (left column) and the use of ship simulation techniques (right column) in the design process

Need for performing a detailed study for design

Ship simulation techniques needed

There are large or inexplicable differences between data from different guidelines, recommendations of WG 141 using the Concept Design Method and those from

waterways in use.

There are doubts about the decisive design cases, because e.g. the Concept Design or practice data do not deal with

possibly relevant aspects as draught.

The Concept Design does not tackle the design case considered, e.g. because of

different local boundary conditions or different s&e demands

The design relevant vessels have special properties, e.g. type, propulsion, steering

aids.

The waterway has a difficult layout like sharp or sequential turns, narrow widths, variable depths, junctions, lock approaches, bridges,

turning areas, berths etc.

Large discrepancy between space available and navigation needs

The environment plays an important role, e.g. intense or variable longitudinal or cross

currents, visibility, turbulence or high water level variations.

Significant construction cost savings seems possible through optimization of

engineering works and designs

There is a need to specify the operational limits or to accept higher operational limits

than usual in design.

When evaluating risk-based design and traffic management

There are doubts about using a lower standard for design than in comparable projects or relevant waterways in use.

Training of captains to fulfil standards

Human factor effects as visibility or reaction time have great impact on design.

To demonstrate the results and nautical aspects of design

Accounting for high traffic density in design. Considering special traffic or operations

To plan and check aids to navigation. To gain acceptance for navigational

needs

When evaluating risk-based design and traffic management.

If the design causes severe impacts e.g. concerning river ecology or water stages,

leading to a possibly modified design.

• Criteria speaking for a

detailed study, e.g. special

vessel properties, possible

reduction of construction

costs, irregular conditions

• Recommendation on

performing an “ideal study”

details in Appendix 5






4.4 Detailed or

case-by-case

design

• Don’t forget to check the

data basis, to calibrate and

verify the models used!

• Encourage Clients to ask for it!

• Choose relevant reference

cases to adjust the detailed

S&E approach.

• “Scan” relevant scenarios.

• Perform several runs for

decisive design cases and

compare it with the

reference case.

• Interpret results properly!

The reality is often different: Time pressure, low

budget, lack of understanding for the demands of

modelling … Nevertheless: If PIANC demands for it,

we may hope that the quality of simulation results

will be better in future!



• Explaining the application of the 3-

Steps-Approach for selected

waterway dimensions.

• Reference to Appendix V how to

account for “extra widths”, which

are not treated in Chapter 5.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS

5.1 General remarks and guide notes how to use the

recommendations in Chapter 5

5.1.1 Introduction to the procedure

5.1.2 Determine the necessary quality of driving for design

5.1.3 Determine the waterway dimension

5.1.4 Account for extra widths

(Extended Concept

Design”)





recommendations in Chapter 5

5.1.1 Introduction to the procedure

5.1.2 Determine the necessary quality of driving for design

5.1.3 Determine the waterway dimension

5.1.4 Account for extra widths

(Extended Concept

Design”)

• Explaining the application of the 3-

Steps-Approach for selected

waterway dimensions.

• Reference to Appendix V how to

account for “extra widths”, which

are not treated in Chapter 5.





recommendations in chapter 5

5.2 Canal fairway width and cross section

5.2.1 Introduction for canals

5.2.2 Concept Design for canals

5.2.3 Extended Concept Design for canals

5.2.4 Practice approach for canals

5.2.5 Detailed design for canals

5.2.6 Conclusion on Fairway width for canals

You will find the same

substructure of the

chapters also for other

waterway types !







5.2.2 Concept Design

for canals



Table 1:Canal fairway dimension in existing guidelines as a factor of ship dimension for deep-draught vessels (no relevant wind increments), straight sections and no relevant cross flow

velocities)

Ship (B x L x T) Two-way (bank slope 3/1) Single-lane Driving quality

WF/B h/T n WF/B h/T Level

China

Canal

Average (Class II – V)

4.4 1.3 4.4 - - A-B

China Channel Average

(Class II – VII) 4.4 1.4 6-7 - - A-B

China River Average

(Class I – VII) 4.4 1.2 - 2.3 1.2 A-B

Dutch normal 11.45 x 185 x 3.5 4.0 1.4 8.7 2 1.3 A-B

Dutch narrow 11.45 x 185 x 2.8 3.0 1.3 6.7 - - B-C

France 11.40 x 180 x 3 3.77 1.5 6.25 - - B-C

Germany 11.45 x 185 x 2.8 3.3 1.4 5.6 2 1.4 B-C

Russia 16.5 x 135 x 3.5 2.6 1.3 - 1.5 1.3 C

US River 10.7 x 59.5 x 2.7 ~3.3 ~1.3 ~4.9 ~2.2 1.3 B-C

Collection of relevant

waterway dimensions

from considered

guidelines!








for canals



Table 1:Canal fairway dimension in existing guidelines as a factor of ship dimension for deep-draught vessels (no relevant wind increments), straight sections and no relevant cross flow

velocities)

Ship (B x L x T) Two-way (bank slope 3/1) Single-lane Driving quality

WF/B h/T n WF/B h/T Level

China

Canal

Average (Class II – V)

4.4 1.3 4.4 - - A-B

China Channel Average

(Class II – VII) 4.4 1.4 6-7 - - A-B

China River Average

(Class I – VII) 4.4 1.2 - 2.3 1.2 A-B

Dutch normal 11.45 x 185 x 3.5 4.0 1.4 8.7 2 1.3 A-B

Dutch narrow 11.45 x 185 x 2.8 3.0 1.3 6.7 - - B-C

France 11.40 x 180 x 3 3.77 1.5 6.25 - - B-C

Germany 11.45 x 185 x 2.8 3.3 1.4 5.6 2 1.4 B-C

Russia 16.5 x 135 x 3.5 2.6 1.3 - 1.5 1.3 C

US River 10.7 x 59.5 x 2.7 ~3.3 ~1.3 ~4.9 ~2.2 1.3 B-C

Collection of relevant

waterway dimensions

from considered

guidelines!

• E.g. width between

bank slopes in static

draught depth WF as a

multiple of B

• Assessed assignation

to corresponding S&E

quality

Cambodia Seminar, 23/24th October 2019 – WG141 Design Guidelines for Inland Waterway Dimensions – Soenghen/Deplaix







for canals



56

Avoidance of “interim

S&E-qualities” (solved in

February 2017)

Recommended “basic” waterway dimensions

Waterway


Fairway width for two-way (approximately also for two-lane,

including overtaking manoeuvres)



C B A C B A

min WF (straight canal sections)

2B1)

1.9B 2.1B 2.3B

For security reasons

3B2)

4B3)

2.8B 3.5B 4.5B

2.5 B can damage the canal

min n 2.5 3.5 4.5 To keep on speed

3.5 5 7 To keep on speed

min D (over bottom width)

1.3 d

Because of squat & efficiency of bow thrusters

1.3 d 1.4 d


min R (F needed

for R ) 4 L 7 L 10 L 4 L 7 L 10 L

max vflow (longitudinal)

0.5 m/s 0.5 m/s

max vcross (averaged

over L, F needed

for vcross 0)

0.3 m/s 0.3 m/s

design vW (inland)

(F needed for empty/ballasted or container vessels at

vW 0)

5-6 BF (8.0 – 13.9 m/s; 10.5 m/s

according to Dutch Guidelines)

5-6 BF (8.0 – 13.9 m/s; 10.5 m/s


design vW (costal)


vW 0)

6-7 BF (10.8 – 17.2 m/s; 13.5 m/s according to Dutch

Guidelines)

6-7 BF (10.8 – 17.2 m/s; 13.5 m/s


Cambodia Seminar, 23/24th October 2019 – WG141 Design Guidelines for Inland Waterway Dimensions – Soenghen/Deplaix







for canals



57

Avoidance of “interim

S&E-qualities” (solved in

February 2017)

Recommended “basic” waterway dimensions

Waterway


Fairway width for two-way (approximately also for two-lane,

including overtaking manoeuvres)



C B A C B A

min WF (straight canal sections)

2B1)

1.9B 2.1B 2.3B

For security reasons

3B2)

4B3)

2.8B 3.5B 4.5B

2.5 B can damage the canal

min n 2.5 3.5 4.5 To keep on speed

3.5 5 7 To keep on speed

min D (over bottom width)

1.3 d


1.3 d 1.4 d


min R (F needed

for R ) 4 L 7 L 10 L 4 L 7 L 10 L

max vflow (longitudinal)

0.5 m/s 0.5 m/s

max vcross (averaged

over L, F needed

for vcross 0)

0.3 m/s 0.3 m/s

design vW (inland)


vW 0)

5-6 BF (8.0 – 13.9 m/s; 10.5 m/s


5-6 BF (8.0 – 13.9 m/s; 10.5 m/s


design vW (costal)


vW 0)

6-7 BF (10.8 – 17.2 m/s; 13.5 m/s according to Dutch

Guidelines)

6-7 BF (10.8 – 17.2 m/s; 13.5 m/s


To make it more operational,

I drafted interpolation tables,

used according to S&E notes










• Inaccuracies of simulator results are

greatest for narrow canals!

• But the report offers several hints on

how to reduce inaccuracies (by

applying the principle of a

comparative variant analysis, by

avoiding the critical ship speed range,

which is unknown in many simulators

etc.),










• Inaccuracies of simulator results are

greatest for narrow canals!

• But the report offers several hints on

how to reduce inaccuracies (by

applying the principle of a comparative

variant analysis, by avoiding the

critical ship speed range, which is

unknown in many simulators etc.),

• Example: reduction of bow thruster

efficiency by blockage effects

More hints in Appendix IV






5.3 Fairway widths in rivers

5.4 Width and headroom of bridge openings

5.5 Length and widths of lock approaches

5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins

5.8 Berthing places and waiting areas

Practice in rivers (fairway marked by buoys)

with conclusions concerning Concept Design

example one lane (3B for S&E B/C)

Main simulation bridge SANDRA with an inland vessel sailing on the river Rhine

Class Vb sailing at mean water on the existing river stretch

Figure 1: Real time simulations at the shiphandling simulator SANDRA of DST (Germany) for the Danube DST SANDRA-Simulator: Danube River close to Straubing

Hints on how to improve results + examples for

simulations (together with Appendixes 6 and 7)

Inaccuracies may

have several sources,

e.g. the flow model or

bathymetry, not

always the simulator!









5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


• This is the “weakest” part of the report!

• It was almost impossible to agree on specific

numbers for lateral safety distances!

• The table is a compromise of the last meeting!

• General recommendation to perform a risk

analysis and a Detailed Design!

Advice to look into

existing guidelines

instead, e.g. Chinese

Decision of INCOM

to establish a new

WG concerning

“Headroom

Clearances under

Bridges”

Waterway

Bridge opening single-lane Bridge opening two-way



C B A C B A

min WF 2B 2.2B 2.4B

Minimum safety margin 5.0 m

3.2B 4B 4.8B

Minimum safety margin 5.0 m

Recommended min. bridge opening dimensions









5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


Table 1: Bridge opening ratio (average over several bridges for each river considered) for one-lane traffic in each bridge field and two-way in one field (in italic). The numbers in brackets for German rivers refer to existing

widths, minus extra widths due to curvature effects, assuming a fully loaded vessel (FC = cCL2/R,

cC 0.25) */**Wu = usable width, B = ship beam, u = upstream, d = downstream

River Section [km] Wu/B (u)* Wu/B (d)**

Rhine 424.430 – 595.630

3.3 3.1 (3.1) 2.2 2.6 (2.6)

Neckar 9.746 – 110.017

2.1 2.4 (2.2) 1.9 2.0 (1.7)

Waal – Nieuwe Maas 934.000 – 1001.000

6.6 4.5

China, free flowing rivers (upper bottom width)

3.0) 6.8

China, restricted channels (upper bottom width, ratio for broadest vessels only

3.8 (two-way only)

China, canals (ratio for broadest vessels only)

5.3 (two-way only)

Practice: bridge opening ratio Practice data

don’t really

help in many

cases!









5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


Special feature:

Extended (by influence of vFlow)

Concept Design as a starting

point for Detailed Design

General recommendation for a detailed study: „Who can pay a lock, can also pay a detailed study!“

Sailing fast (vFlow/vSW

0.3) BLA = 2B + bc 2.6 B


• Junctions in canals according to Dutch Guidelines








5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins




• General recommendation to perform a Detailed

Study, e.g. for narrow conditions or rivers








5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins




• General recommendation to perform a Detailed

Study, e.g. for narrow conditions or rivers

• Again: Extended Concept Design as a first attempt








5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


flow velocity

vFlow

length of crossflow zone LcF

vessel length L

B

vessel course sailing upstream, entering harbour










5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


Free turn, using stern rudder only

Fixed turn,

e.g. for

rivers









5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


Free turn, using stern rudder only

Fixed turn,

e.g. for

rivers

“Rule of thumb” in case of significant flow velocities:Ldriftm Cl,drift LmvFlowm/s

A Detailed Study

will be necessary

in many cases









5.6 Junctions

5.7 Turning basins


Dimensions of berthing places as a factor of L & B

Table 1: Berthing places as a factor of ship dimension (add fender width) for straight channel sections without significant flow impact

Length Width Layback Quality of driving

Dutch 1.2 L > B 0.5 B A-B

Germany - > B 0.3 B C

US - 1.2 B A

PIANC 1.1 > B + fender 0.3 B C

PIANC 1.2 > B + fender 0.5 B A

As always:

• No recommendation, whether berthing

or waiting places are necessary,

• but if “yes”, take the recommended

numbers (“PIANC”)


General:• Understandable and rational design (choice of methods, quantification)

3-steps-approach with rational decisions + quantified S&E-approach Process recommendation instead of giving numbers for complicated design

• Use reasonable design cases only Accept nautical restrictions for seldom cases• Consider the target group of the report

Decision makers (who don’t know what is really important, which data areneeded, which approach is the best and feasible …)

Clients of navigational studies (who have to know how expensive navigationalstudies for waterway design purposes may be)

Layman wishing to receive comprehensive background information (see Appendixes)

Methods:• Concept Design (huge number of influencing parameters and different guidelines):

S&E approach replaces partly adding of increments (as in MARCOM 49) hints on using alternative methods if application limits are reached

• Practice (partly strongly varying and inaccurate data): Use it with care because local boundary conditions may dominate design

5 CONCLUSIONS


5 …CONCLUSIONS

• Detailed Design (how to account for method-specific inaccuracies and random effects?): Consider all possibly relevant variants (e.g. by aid of Concept Design) with less

effort (e.g. one simulation only) with less effort and restrict simulations to decisive design cases

Apply the principle of comparative variant analyses Transfer of knowledge from reference cases with good experiences

and accepted S&E quality to design case Use objective results (time series of relevant data) to quantify S&E Use the “averaging principle” for decisive design cases to reduce random

effects (several drives instead of one or average of drives with comparable boundary conditions) to end up with a comprehensive score

Focus on differences between reference and design case, not absolute values Use all available information, also absolute values, expert rating … Interpret the results properly, considering that even the best approach used

is not able to eliminate all inaccuracies (e.g. in case of narrow cross sections, T/h close to 1, unsteady turbulence and 3D-flow effects as those from secondary currents)

• The report provides assistance to all a.m. aspects, clearly together with other codes of practice, e.g. concerning SHSs usage (not yet involved)


APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

I.1 Preliminary remarks to existing guidelines

I.2 Belgium Guidelines

I.3 Chinese Guidelines

I.4 Dutch Guidelines

I.5 French Guidelines

I.6 German Guidelines

I.7 Russian Guidelines

I.8 US Guidelines

Canals only, extensions to the Dutch guidelines

concerning minimum fairway dimensions.

psLBFDU

DUDUDU sin Unique design

formulae

Very comprehensively!

Reference to original

guidelines (in English)

BRLCBRw fR 22

2Canals only! Unique

curve increments

Deals with e.g. locks in rivers!

Class Headroom

Two way width One way width

[m] normal reduced normal reduced

IV 5.25 45 36 30 24

V 7.0 45 36 30 24

Very narrow!

Not only bridge

openings!

Very small fairways,

s f(B,L), slow

speed!


Example Chinese Guidelines

I.3.1 Classification and Design Vessel

I.3.2 Dimensions for Channels and Canals

(Fairway Dimensions)

I.3.3 Increments and Clearance

I.3.4 Bridge Openings

I.3.5 Lock Approaches

I.3.6 Turning Basins and Junctions

I.3.7 Berthing Places (no recommendation)

Table 1: Chinese channel dimensions in rivers

classes of navigable waterways

Convoy general characteristics [m]

Channel dimension rivers [m]

Bend Radius

Bridge clearance [m]

len

gth

beam

dra

ug

ht

depth

wid

th

sin

gle

wid

th

doub

le

wid

th

sin

gle

wid

th

doub

le

heig

ht

I

406 64.8 3.5

3.5~4.0

125 250 1200 200 400 7

316 48.6 3.5 100 195 950 160 320 7

223 32.4 3.5 70 135 670 110 220 8

II

270 48.6 2.6

2.6~3.0

100 190 810 145 290 6

186 32.4 2.6 70 130 560 105 210 8

182 16.2 2.6 40 75 550 75 150 6

III

238 21.6 2.0

2.0~2.4

55 110 720 100 200 6

167 21.6 2.0 45 90 500 75 150 6

160 10.8 2.0 30 60 480 55 110 6

IV

167 21.6 1.6

1.6~1.9

45 90 500 75 150 4

112 21.6 1.6 40 80 340 60 120 4

111 10.8 1.6 30 50 330 45 90 5

67.5 10.8 1.6

V

94 18.4 1.3

1.3~1.6

35 70 280 55 110 4.5

91 9.2 1.3 22 40 270 40 80

5.5

55 8.6 1.3 3.5

VI 188 7.0 1.0

1.0~1.2 15 30 180 25 40 3.4

45 5.5 1.0 4.0

VII 145 5.5 0.7 0.7~0.9 12 24 130 20 32 2.8

32.5 5.5 0.7

Inverse

classification

system to CEMT

Bank increment s for single-lane traffic:

• 0.25-0.30 times the swept path for barge

• 0.34-0.40 times the swept path for

convoys. These numbers are included in the

tables with “basic widths”!

Table 1: Extra increment due to cross flow for crossing structures (bridges)

Classification

Downbound deviation [m]

additional clearance one way navigation [m]

cross current [m/s]

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

I

10 25 40 30 60 90 115 140

10 20 35 25 45 65 90 115

10 20 30 20 35 55 70 90

II

10 20 35 25 45 60 75 95

10 20 30 20 35 50 65 80

10 15 20 20 30 45 60 70

III

10 20 30 20 35 50 65 80

10 15 20 20 30 40 55 70

8 10 15 15 25 40 50 65

IV

10 15 20 15 30 45 55 70

8 10 15 15 25 35 45 55

8 10 15 15 25 35 45 55

8 10 15 15 25 35 45 55

V

8 10 15 15 20 25 30 40

8 10 15 15 20 25 30 40

8 10 15 15 20 25 30 40

VI 8 10 15 8 18 28 33 38

8 8 10 8 18 28 33 38

VII 5 8 8 8 13 23 28 33

5 8 8 8 13 23 28 33

Extra width due to cross flow

Generally very generous

dimensions because of

vessel types, pilot skills …

Is this reasonable even if vcross is small and

according to the usual limit value 0f 0.3 m/s?

Definitively “yes” in case of max L = 406 m

and if the cross flow field is actually that wide:

40 m corresponds to v 11 km/h, which is

very reasonable!Extra width due to drifting sideways with the

same speed than vcross: bcross L vcross / v


Example Chinese Guidelines

I.3.1 Classification and Design Vessel

I.3.2 Dimensions for Channels and Canals

(Fairway Dimensions)

I.3.3 Increments and Clearance

I.3.4 Bridge Openings

I.3.5 Lock Approaches

I.3.6 Turning Basins and Junctions

I.3.7 Berthing Places (no recommendation)

Table 1: Chinese channel dimensions in rivers

classes of navigable waterways

Convoy general characteristics [m]

Channel dimension rivers [m]

Bend Radius

Bridge clearance [m]

len

gth

beam

dra

ug

ht

depth

wid

th

sin

gle

wid

th

doub

le

wid

th

sin

gle

wid

th

doub

le

heig

ht

I

406 64.8 3.5

3.5~4.0

125 250 1200 200 400 7

316 48.6 3.5 100 195 950 160 320 7

223 32.4 3.5 70 135 670 110 220 8

II

270 48.6 2.6

2.6~3.0

100 190 810 145 290 6

186 32.4 2.6 70 130 560 105 210 8

182 16.2 2.6 40 75 550 75 150 6

III

238 21.6 2.0

2.0~2.4

55 110 720 100 200 6

167 21.6 2.0 45 90 500 75 150 6

160 10.8 2.0 30 60 480 55 110 6

IV

167 21.6 1.6

1.6~1.9

45 90 500 75 150 4

112 21.6 1.6 40 80 340 60 120 4

111 10.8 1.6 30 50 330 45 90 5

67.5 10.8 1.6

V

94 18.4 1.3

1.3~1.6

35 70 280 55 110 4.5

91 9.2 1.3 22 40 270 40 80

5.5

55 8.6 1.3 3.5

VI 188 7.0 1.0

1.0~1.2 15 30 180 25 40 3.4

45 5.5 1.0 4.0

VII 145 5.5 0.7 0.7~0.9 12 24 130 20 32 2.8

32.5 5.5 0.7

Inverse

classification

system to CEMT

Bank increment s for single-lane traffic:

• 0.25-0.30 times the swept path for barge

• 0.34-0.40 times the swept path for

convoys. These numbers are included in the

tables with “basic widths”!

Table 1: Extra increment due to cross flow for crossing structures (bridges)

Classification

Downbound deviation [m]

additional clearance one way navigation [m]

cross current [m/s]

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

I

10 25 40 30 60 90 115 140

10 20 35 25 45 65 90 115

10 20 30 20 35 55 70 90

II

10 20 35 25 45 60 75 95

10 20 30 20 35 50 65 80

10 15 20 20 30 45 60 70

III

10 20 30 20 35 50 65 80

10 15 20 20 30 40 55 70

8 10 15 15 25 40 50 65

IV

10 15 20 15 30 45 55 70

8 10 15 15 25 35 45 55

8 10 15 15 25 35 45 55

8 10 15 15 25 35 45 55

V

8 10 15 15 20 25 30 40

8 10 15 15 20 25 30 40

8 10 15 15 20 25 30 40

VI 8 10 15 8 18 28 33 38

8 8 10 8 18 28 33 38

VII 5 8 8 8 13 23 28 33

5 8 8 8 13 23 28 33

Extra width due to cross flow

Generally very generous

dimensions because of

vessel types, pilot skills …

Unique recommendations

concerning currents: “For the place where the current effect is

great, the width of the turning basin

(perpendicular to the current direction) is

1.5 - 2.0 L, the length (along the current

direction) is 2.5 - 3.0 L.”


APPENDIX II: DIMENSIONS OF

EXISTING GUIDELINES - PRACTICE

II.1 Introduction

II.2 Fairway widths in rivers

II.3 Lock approach lengths

and widths

II.4 Bridge openings

Extremely varying

• bridge opening ratios and

• lock approach widths and lengths

Waal, The Netherlands

Different definitions:

Navigation rectangle,

buoys bounded or

bank bounded

*/**Bu = usable width, B = beam ship, u = upstream, d = downstream

River Section [km] Bu/B (u)* Bu/B (d)**

Rhine 424.430 – 595.630 3.3 2.2

Neckar 9.746 – 110.017 2.1 1.9

Waal – Nieuwe Maas

934.000 – 1001.000 6.6 4.5

Average ratio 4.0 2.9

River Bh/B (u) Bh/B (l) Lh/L (u) Lh/L (l)

Main 2.8d, 1.8s 2.8d, 2.4s ~ 2.5

Neckar 8.3t, 2.6d, 2.3s 4.2t, 2.5d, 2.0s 0.7 – 1.4 1.0 – 2.1

Nederrijn/Lek 2.9s 3.3s 6.3s 4.0s

Maas 8.2t, 4.9d, 9.4s 6.9t, 4.6d, 3.2s 4.3t, 3.3 d, 4.6s 4.2t, 2.5d, 3.9s

Mosel (Apach lock) 3 (s) 3s 1.26-1.76s 1s

France (CEMT/ITF class Va)

>2.15s >2.15s >0.86s >0.86s

Average ratio 8.3t, 3.4d, 3.6s 5.6t, 3.3d, 2.7s

B(L)h = beam (Length) harbour – B(L)s = beam (Length) berthed ship(s), u = upper harbour, l = lower harbour, d = double lock, s = single lock, t = triple lock

Practice data must be interpreted with care!


APPENDIX III: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY AND EASE QUALITY

AND ITS USAGE FOR DESIGN

III.1 How to use the approach

III.2 Simplified safety and ease approach

III.3 Detailed safety and ease approach

III.4 Further examples of applying the safety and ease approach

Comprehensive information on the

ideas and numbers behind the S&E

approach and recommendations how

it should be applied!

E.g. background of ship speed criteria

Detailed information on how to “design” the detailed S&E

approach: E.g. parameters for making distances dimensionless


APPENDIX IV: DETAILED OR CASE-BY-CASE-DESIGN – USING SIMULATION

TECHNIQUES OR FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

IV.1 Preliminary remarks and definition

IV.2 General remarks for using simulation techniques

IV.3 Influence of human factor in using ship handling simulators

IV.4 General approach in using fast time and full bridge simulators for

designing waterways

• Introducing the NASA

TLX (Task Load Index)

Test for assessing the

“work load” in

steering the vessel.

• This index can be

compared between the

ease reference case

“erc” and design case

(“dc”) to consider the

human factor aspects

quantitatively!

Comprehensive

information (as in specialist

book) on the usage of

simulation techniques!

Index to quantify the task load


APPENDIX IV: DETAILED OR CASE-BY-CASE-DESIGN – USING SIMULATION

TECHNIQUES OR FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

IV.1 Preliminary remarks and definition

IV.2 General remarks for using simulation techniques

IV.3 Influence of human factor in using ship handling simulators

IV.4 General approach

in using fast time

and full bridge

simulators for

designing

waterways

Detailed description of

the “ideal approach” in

using SHSs for waterway

design purposes!

Use existing

recommendations (e.g.

from PLATINA)

additionally!


APPENDIX V: EXTENDED CONCEPT DESIGN – ACCOUNT FOR EXTRA

WIDTHS

V.1 How to account

for extra widths

V.2 Understanding of safety distances and extra widths

V.2.1 Ship-induced waves and flows with its drawbacks to safety distances

V.2.2 Sinusoidal ship course and effect of human factor

V.2.3 Navigating bends

V.2.4 Influence of longitudinal currents

V.2.5 Influence of cross currents

V.2.6 Driving close to groynes

V.2.7 Wind effects

Providing approximation

formulae for all relevant extra

widths, together with

necessary parameters for

relevant scenarios and

thresholds (cC 0.25/0.5

loaded/empty).

Example extra widths in curves

cc for Class Va vessels

Comprehensive version of Chapters 2.3.X



WIDTHS

V.1 How to account

for extra widths







V.2.6 Driving close

to groynes

V.2.7 Wind effects

Comprehensive version of Chapters 2.3.X

Making it as simple as

possible for users:

Flow influence is scaled by

the groyne spacing and

dewatering by groyne length



WIDTHS

V.1 How to account for extra widths








V.2.7 Wind effects

vessels and average draughts for empty

vessels & 2 container

layers (T2) respectively 3 layers of containers

(T3)

flow velocities, waterway types, loading condition respectively number of container layers and corresponding wind-exposed height hSW, driving direction

canal

vFlow0.5 m/s, always acting in driving direction:

v9 km/h*),

vaG10.8 km/h

vFlow 1.0 m/s

impounded river

vFlow/vSW = 0.4

vag 5.4 km/h upwards and 12.6 km/h downwards

vFlow 1.5 m/s

free flowing river,

vFlow/vSW = 0.4 upstream and 0.5 downstream,

vaG 8.1 km/h upwards and 16.2 km/h downwards

empty/ 2 layers hSW = 4.5 m

3 layers hSW =

7m


3 layers hSW =

7m

downstream drive upstream

drive

hSW = 4.5 m

hSW =

7m

hSW = 4.5 m

hSW =

7m

GMS (110x11.4, Class Va), T2 = 1.6m; T3 = 1.8 m

h = 4 m: 0.060

h = 4 m: 0.08

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.11

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.02

h=6 m 0.04

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05

Convoy (185x11.4, Class Vb) T2 = 1.4m; T3 = 1.6 m

h = 4 m: 0.07

h = 4 m: 0.090

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.07

h=6 m 0.11

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.02

h=6 m 0.03

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05

Convoy (185x22.8, Class VIb) T2 = 1.4m; T3 = 1.6 m

h = 4 m: 0.08

h = 4 m: 0.11

h=3 m: 0.07

h=6 m 0.10

h=3 m: 0.08

h=6 m 0.14

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.10

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06


possible for users again:

FW/L for European wind

conditions according to

Dutch 0.05L-rule



WIDTHS









V.2.7 Wind effects




(T3)


canal


v9 km/h*),

vaG10.8 km/h

vFlow 1.0 m/s

impounded river

vFlow/vSW = 0.4


vFlow 1.5 m/s

free flowing river,




3 layers hSW =

7m


3 layers hSW =

7m


drive

hSW = 4.5 m

hSW =

7m

hSW = 4.5 m

hSW =

7m


h = 4 m: 0.060

h = 4 m: 0.08

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.11

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.02

h=6 m 0.04

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05


h = 4 m: 0.07

h = 4 m: 0.090

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.07

h=6 m 0.11

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.02

h=6 m 0.03

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05


h = 4 m: 0.08

h = 4 m: 0.11

h=3 m: 0.07

h=6 m 0.10

h=3 m: 0.08

h=6 m 0.14

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.10

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06





Dutch 0.05L-rule, different

wind-sensitive empty and

container vessels



WIDTHS









V.2.7 Wind effects




(T3)


canal


v9 km/h*),

vaG10.8 km/h

vFlow 1.0 m/s

impounded river

vFlow/vSW = 0.4


vFlow 1.5 m/s

free flowing river,




3 layers hSW =

7m


3 layers hSW =

7m


drive

hSW = 4.5 m

hSW =

7m

hSW = 4.5 m

hSW =

7m


h = 4 m: 0.060

h = 4 m: 0.08

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.11

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.02

h=6 m 0.04

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05


h = 4 m: 0.07

h = 4 m: 0.090

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.07

h=6 m 0.11

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.02

h=6 m 0.03

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05


h = 4 m: 0.08

h = 4 m: 0.11

h=3 m: 0.07

h=6 m 0.10

h=3 m: 0.08

h=6 m 0.14

h=3 m: 0.05

h=6 m 0.08

h=3 m: 0.06

h=6 m 0.10

h=3 m: 0.03

h=6 m 0.05

h=3 m: 0.04

h=6 m 0.06





Dutch 0.05L-rule, different

wind-sensitive empty and

container vessels and

different channel types and

water depths.


Wind approach

(1) National wind statistics

international Beaufort-Definition:

10 min. average in 10 m height

(7) Tables for typical (European

according to Dutch rule of thumb)

boundary conditions and vessels

(2) Vertical wind profile according to

roughness effects 10 min. average

speed in vessel height

(3) Gust factor (assumption 60 sec. ave-

raging time) effective wind speed

(4) Apparent wind and wind direction

A with largest impact

Largest Wind forces and moments

(5) Forces and moments onto the

underwater body of the vessel (US

Design Mooring) and rudder forces for

compensation.

(6) Equilibrium (quasi-stationary drive)

Drift angle and corresponding extra

widths

L/B = 10

One could go even further using DIN EN:

• E.g. adaption of the design wind speed

according to wind regions of the national

annexes

• Or wind shading effects …


APPENDIX VI: APPLICATION OF THE DETAILED DESIGN

APPROACH BY AN EXAMPLE (Danube downstream Straubing)

INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

OF TRAFFIC ON THE RIVER DANUBE BY

REAL TIME SIMULATIONS

Class Vb sailing downstream

Tightest left turn

at Reibersdorf

Narrow Bogenberg Bridge • Strictly applying the principles of

• comparative variant analyses and ,

• a quantified S&E approach (using weighted

averages of different “reserves”), as well as

• the averaging principle!

• Reference case = present nautical conditions

• Design case = Danube River improvement using

river training, same vessels, almost the same

fairway, but deeper draught, other flow field

“erc”

“dc”

The S&E quality in terms of reserves is almost the same or

better in “dc” than in “erc”!

+ REFERENCES


After nearly 10 years, the report was finally published

on PIANC website in January 2019 !

Thanks for your attention –

pianc incom wg 141: “design guidelines for dimensions” · layman : read chapter 2 (basics), 3...

Documents